Amongst the Brexit turmoil in the UK Parliament this week, preparations are continuing on the ground for the continual protection of intellectual property, whatever the eventual outcome. Here we take a brief look at the latest guidance from the government for the protection of patents and SPCs in the UK in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

In this blog we look at the very recent decision of the Patents Court in favour of Chugai in the long-running patent and licensing dispute with the patentee, UCB. The judgment is interesting in looking at how an English judge applies US law of patent construction, and for helpful guidance on patent drafting.

In this blog we take a look at a recent decision of the UK High Court concerning standard essential-patents, part of the global patent battle between Apple and Qualcomm. The focus of this particular ruling was on jurisdictional issues and an application to strike-out the claim against the UK defendant.

Are the English Courts the right forum for claims of patent infringement when the relief sought is the determination of a global FRAND licence? This was the question that Mr Justice Carr recently had to consider in Conversant Wireless Licensing SARL v Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.

It is a statutory fundamental that following a finding that a patent (or other intellectual property) right is both valid and infringed, the successful patentee is entitled to financial compensation in the form of damages or an account of profits, but not both. In this blog we look at a recent High Court decision in which the patentee tried unsuccessfully to argue it should defer choosing between the two until the last possible moment.

Although the adverse consequences were perhaps less than they otherwise might have been, the recent decision in L'Oréal Société Anonyme & L'Oréal (UK) Limited v RN Ventures Limited underlines the benefits of registering transactions in a patent at the Intellectual Property Office.

Last month the Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice published an article written by three members of our team analysing the key points of the landmark UK Supreme Court decision in Actavis v Eli Lilly.

The patent battle between Warner-Lambert (Pfizer) and Actavis and Mylan reached the Supreme Court in February 2018. Members of Fieldfisher's patent litigation team were in court to hear the judges' initial reaction to the arguments which can shed light on where the court's reasoned judgment will end up. The issues are of huge significance to users of the patent system. They include whether a patentable invention needs to be made "plausible" at the filing date and, if so, the level of information the patent application must include, and the correct approach to enforcing second medical use claims.

Hot on the heels of its ground breaking decision last summer in Actavis UK Ltd v Eli Lilly & Co [2017] UKSC 48, which introduced a doctrine of equivalents into English law, the Supreme Court is poised to hear another very significant patent case, Warner-Lambert v Actavis, this month, as we report in this blog.

We previously reported on the judgment in the FRAND trial ("the 711 judgment"), the sixth in the series of judgments in the Unwired Planet v Huawei patent battle. We now look at the High Court's judgment concerning the controversial issue of confidential information and redaction